Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter XI. Evidence in court proceedings
›
11.11. Judicial discretion depending on the outcome of the evidence

11.11. Judicial discretion depending on the outcome of the evidence

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Closely related to the question of evidence is the court’s balancing activity, which can be inferred primarily from the reasoning of the case law. It is therefore particularly important that courts fulfil this obligation as widely as possible.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The Court of Justice has held that it is a violation of Article 9 of the Convention if:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • the reasoning of the judgment merely reiterates the statutory elements of the offence, but does not specify the specific conduct that constitutes the offence;1
  • the conviction of the accused is based solely on the statements made by his co-defendant to the prosecutor during the investigation phase, and neither he nor his defence counsel has the opportunity to question the witness;2
  • the conviction of the accused is based to a decisive extent on the testimony of the mother of the minor victim and of the police officer who interrogated the victim, even though the accused cannot directly question the victim at the trial, since the court decides not to question the minor on the grounds of protecting their moral development;3
  • the victim’s statement made exclusively before a psychologist and not recorded on video or audio equipment is used as the basis for a conviction, without the applicant being allowed to question the victim, who is an expert witness against him, at any time during the criminal proceedings.4

11.11.1. Assessment of certain sentencing factors in the reasons for sentencing

1 “Kokinakis v. Greece”, ECHR 1998/2. In Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka (2008) ibid. 300.
2 Case “Luca v. Italy”, 27 February 2001, ECHR 2002/1.17. In: Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka (2008) ibid. 307.
3 Case “P. S. v. Germany”, 20 December 2002, ECHR 2002/2.26. In Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka (2008) ibid. 307.
4 “F. and M. vs. Finland” case, 17 July 2007. In Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka (2008) ibid. 306.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave